by Outcast_Searcher » Sun 01 Sep 2019, 13:51:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '[')
On the one hand everything seems hopeless, and perhaps it is. If it is hopeless the one might as well ignore the consequences and party on.
I prefer to think, against all rational observation, that we might get lucky, that something might occur that saves us from ourselves. Maybe a well placed meteor strike or a particularly nasty virus or something new. But something that stops our consumption in its tracks and allows some breathing room.
As much as fast crash doomers hate to acknowledge the power of technology to change things, technology IS something that can (and I think will) buy us time, re climate change.
For example, re removing CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in large quantities, powered by green energy is already possible. It's NOT a question of whether that can occur -- it's only a question of what it costs. As more companies / scientists investigate this as it becomes more obvious it will be necessary, the price drops.
Presumably the price will keep dropping over time. We KNOW the problem will worsen over time. It's only a matter of time until such technology is applied for remediation.
One example:
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/67374275 ... atastrophe...
Now, do I think this will "solve" climate change, given human nature? Absolutely not!
But do I think it can buy humanity significant time (to find other technologies, perhaps get serious about down-sizing, etc)? Yes I do. It might buy, say, a generation or so. And follow-on technologies and policies in that generation might buy another generation or so, etc. And that could go on for awhile.
At greater and greater overall expense, and with diminishing returns over time, of course, which is why I don't expect it to "fix" the problem long term.
...
There is a BIG difference between BAU and "stopping our consumption in its tracks". Heck, if things get bad enough and robots mitigate the labor issue for dealing with the elderly, maybe a universal one child only policy would help a lot over time re the population, for example.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.